We reviewed Wall Street, the 1987 Hollywood movie in light of ethical dilemmas that characters were involved. The film revolves around three main characters; Bud Fox a novice stock broker who is desperate to get good money. Gorden Gekko, a ruthless Wall Street player who does whatever it takes to pile up his wealth and Carl, Fox’s father, who represents the blue collar worker, critical of Wall Street tycoons.
Fox is a young man with a potential, but life as a new stock broker hasn’t been fun. He has been working hard the whole day but his salary hardly lasted him to the next pay. At times he had to borrow money from his father, who often asked Fox whether he made the right career choice. Fox found a way out, he managed to get involved with Gekko who lured him to the Wall Street high life for insider information. Gekko did not only present Fox money and the luxury that comes with it but also a challenge to his sharp brain. He would demand ‘surprise me!’
I think we often find ourselves violating our ethical principles, when we try to solve our challenges using the short cuts. We tend to forget that the right way is often long, but it will certainly take us where we want to reach and most importantly it will make us stay there or go even further. Short cuts on the other hand usually come with compromises, in the first place we are ruling out our conscience, which is telling us the right to do. And we are also going against regulations, which we may get away with for some time. But sooner or later our wrongs catch up with us.
Once money start to flow, it is almost impossible to turn back, it is never enough, we get deeper and deeper shattering our morals and principles. Fox woke up to face reality when he realized that Gekko was selling Bluestar, going against their plan of expansion. Now his father’s and so many employees’ job at Bluestar are on the line. Fox had supported Gekko when he sold a number of businesses before. But they didn’t bother him; the people who were affected by his actions were faceless. But, Bluestar made him see the money on one hand and his father on the other. He rightfully chose his father and made himself ready to pay for his misdeeds.
The question now is do we always have to see consequences on someone close before we start to fix our wrong?
I think you bring up an interesting point about sacrificing ethics for shortcuts. In today’s technological age, it seems like we’re almost always looking for some way to make a task easier or get money faster. But, I don’t think that necessarily means we’re compromising our morals to do. Maybe this stems from my Millennial nature, but I find myself considering the quickness of my solution to a problem as part of my equation for success.